[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02

Network Working Group                                              Z. Li
Internet-Draft                                                   S. Peng
Intended status: Standards Track                     Huawei Technologies
Expires: March 13, 2020                                           K. LEE
                                                                   LG U+
                                                      September 10, 2019


                  IPv6 Encapsulation for SFC and IFIT
                     draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit-02

Abstract

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) and In-situ Flow Information
   Telemetry (IFIT) are important path services along with the packets.
   In order to support these services, several encapsulations have been
   defined.  The document analyzes the problems of these encapsulations
   in the IPv6 scenario and proposes the possible optimized
   encapsulation for IPv6.

Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on March 13, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.




Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Design Consideration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.1.  Service Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     4.2.  IPv6 Service Metadata Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.1.  SFC Service Metadata Option . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       4.2.2.  IOAM Service Metadata Option  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       4.2.3.  IFA Service Metadata Option . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   5.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   6.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11

1.  Introduction

   Service Function Chaining (SFC) [RFC7665] and In-situ Flow
   Information Telemetry (IFIT) [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework] are
   important path services along with the packets.  In order to support
   these services, several encapsulations have been defined.  Network
   Service Header (NSH) is defined in [RFC8300] as the encapsulation for
   SFC.  For IFIT encapsulations, In-situ OAM (iOAM) Header is defined
   in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] and Postcard-Based Telemetry (PBT)
   Header is defined in [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].
   Inband Flow Analyzer (IFA) is also defined in [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa] to
   record flow specific information from an end station and/or switches
   across a network.  In the application scenario of IPv6, these
   encapsulations propose challenges for the data plane.  The document
   analyzes the problems and proposes the possible optimized
   encapsulation for IPv6.







Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


2.  Terminology

   SFC: Service Function Chaining

   IFIT: In-situ Flow Information Telemetry

   IOAM: In-situ OAM

   PBT: Postcard-Based Telemetry

   IFA: Inband Flow Analyzer

   SRH: Segment Routing Header

3.  Problem Statement

   The problems posed by the current encapsulations for SFC and IFIT in
   the application scenarios of IPv6 and SRv6 include:

   1.  According to the encapsulation order recommended in [RFC8200], if
   the IOAM is encapsulated in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop options header, in
   the incremental trace mode of IOAM as the number of nodes traversed
   by the IPv6 packets increases, the recorded IOAM information will
   increase accordingly.  This will increase the length of the Hop-by-
   Hop options header and cause increasing difficulties in reading the
   subsequent Segment Routing Extension Header (SRH)
   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header] and thereby reduce the
   forwarding performance of the data plane greatly.

   2.  With the introduction of SRv6 network programming
   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming], the path services along
   with the IPv6 packets can be processed at all the IPv6 network nodes
   or only at the SRv6 enabled network nodes along the path.  It is
   necessary to distinguish the encapsulations for the specific path
   service which should be processed by the IPv6 path or the SRv6 path.

   3.  Both NSH and IOAM need the Metadata field to record metadata
   information.  However currently these metadata has to be recorded
   separately which may generate redundant metadata information or
   increase the cost of process.

   4.  There is unnecessary inconsistency in the current encapsulations
   for IOAM, IFA and PBT in the IPv6 scenario.  Especially it seems
   unnecessary to define a new specific IPv6 header for IFA, i.e. IFA
   header.






Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


4.  Design Consideration

   To solve the problems stated above, in the application scenarios of
   IPv6 and SRv6, the encapsulations of SFC and IFIT can be optimized
   with the following design considerations:

   o  To separate the SFC/IFIT path service into two parts, i.e.
      instruction and recording parts.  The instruction part (normally
      with fixed length) can be placed in the front IPv6 extension
      headers including Hop-by-Hop options header, Destination options
      header, Routing header, etc. while the recording part can be
      placed in the back IPv6 extension headers such as being placed
      after IPv6 Routing Header.  In this way the path service
      instruction in the IPv6 extension headers can be fixed as much as
      possible to facilitate hardware process to keep forwarding
      performance while the SFC/IFIT metadata recording part is placed
      afterwards which enables to stop recording when too much recording
      information has to be carried to reach the limitation of hardware
      process.

   o  To define SFC/IFIT path service instructions as IPv6 options
      uniformly whichs can be placed either in the Hop-by-hop options
      which indicates the path service processed by all IPv6 enabled
      nodes along the path or in the SRH option TLVs which indicates the
      path service processed only by the SRv6 nodes along the SRv6 path
      indicated by the Segment List in the SRH.

   o  To define a unified IPv6 metadata header which can be used as a
      container to record the service metadata of SFC, IFIT and other
      possible path services.

   According to the above design optimization consideration, in the
   application scenarios of IPv6 and SRv6 the encapsulations for SFC and
   IFIT can be defined as below.

4.1.  Service Options

   1.  NSH Service Option













Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Ver|O|U|    TTL    |   Length  |U|U|U|U|MD Type| Next Protocol |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |          Service Path Identifier              | Service Index |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

           Figure 1. IPv6 Options with NSH instructions

   Option Type: TBD_0

   Opt Data Len: 8 octets.

   Other fields: refer to [RFC8300].

   2.  IOAM Service Option

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |        Namespace-ID           |NodeLen  | Flags | RemainingLen|
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |               IOAM-Trace-Type                 |  Reserved     |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

            Figure 2. IPv6 Options with IOAM instructions

   Option Type: TBD_1

   Opt Data Len: 8 octets.

   Other fields: refer to [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].

   3.  PBT Service Option












Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   | Next Header   |  TIH Length   |   Reserved    |   Hop Count   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Flow ID                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Flow ID                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Sequence Number                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Data Set ID                           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 3. IPv6 Options with PBT instructions

   Option Type: TBD_2

   Opt Data Len: 20 octets.

   Other fields: refer to [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry].

   4.  IFA Service Option

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                   |  Option Type  |  Opt Data Len |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |Ver=2.0|  GNS  |NextHdr = IP_xx|R|R|R|M|T|I|T|C|   Max Length  |
   |       |       |               | | | |F|S| |A| |               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
             Figure 4. IPv6 Options with IFA instructions

   Option Type: TBD_3

   Opt Data Len: 4 octets.

   Other fields: refer to [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa].

   These options can be put in the IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Options Header or SRH
   TLV.







Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


4.2.  IPv6 Service Metadata Options

   As introduced in [I-D.li-6man-enhanced-extension-header], IPv6
   Metadata Header is defined as a new type of IPv6 extension header.
   The metadata is the information recorded by each hop for specific
   path services, and carried in corresponding service metadata options.
   The length of the metadata is variable.

4.2.1.  SFC Service Metadata Option

   For the SFC service, the corresponding SFC service metadata option is
   defined as shown in Figure 5.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   SFC Type    |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |      SFC Metadata Class       |      Type     |U|    Length   |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                   Variable-Length Metadata                    |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                      Figure 5. SFC Service Metadata

      SFC Type            8-bit identifier of the service type, i.e. SFC.
                          The value is TBD-4.

      Length              8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the
                          Service Metadata field, in octets.

      Metadata Class      Defines the scope of the Type field to
                          provide a hierarchical namespace.  IANA has
                          set up the "NSH MD Class" registry, which
                          contains 16-bit values [RFC8300].

      Type                Indicates the explicit type of metadata
                          being carried.  The definition of the Type is
                          the responsibility of the MD Class owner.

      Unassigned bit      One unassigned bit is available for future use.
                          This bit MUST NOT be set, and it MUST be
                          ignored on receipt.

      Length              Indicates the length of the variable-length
                          metadata, in bytes. Detailed specification
                          in [RFC8300].




Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


4.2.2.  IOAM Service Metadata Option

   For the IOAM service, the corresponding IOAM service metadata option
   is defined as shown in Figure 6.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   IOAM Type   |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   |            IOAM Service Metadata Options (variable)           |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 6. IOAM Service Metadata

      IOAM Type           8-bit identifier of the IOAM Service Metadata
                          type. The value is TBD-5.

      Length              8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the
                          IOAM Service Metadata field, in octets.

      RESERVED            8-bit reserved field MUST be set to zero upon
                          transmission and ignored upon receipt.

      IOAM Service        IOAM option data is present as specified by the
      Metadata Options    IOAM Type field, and is defined in Section 4 of
                          [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data].


   All the IOAM IPv6 options require 4n alignment.  This ensures that 4
   octet fields specified in [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data] such as transit
   delay are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the
   IPv6 Metadata header.

   In addition, to maintain IPv6 extension header 8-octet alignment and
   avoid the need to add or remove padding at every hop, the Trace-Type
   for Incremental Tracing Option in IPv6 MUST be selected such that the
   IOAM node data length is a multiple of 8-octets.

4.2.3.  IFA Service Metadata Option

   For the IOAM service, the corresponding IOAM service metadata option
   is defined as shown in Figure 6.






Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |   IFA Type   |     Length    |            Reserved           |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   ~                                                               ~
   |             IFA Service Metadata Options (variable)           |
   ~                                                               ~
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                    Figure 6. IFA Service Metadata

      IFA Type            8-bit identifier of the IFA Service Metadata
                          type. The value is TBD-6.

      Length              8-bit unsigned integer. Length of the
                          IOAM Service Metadata field, in octets.

      RESERVED            8-bit reserved field MUST be set to zero upon
                          transmission and ignored upon receipt.

      IFA Service         IFA option data is present as specified by the
      Metadata Options    IFA Type field.


5.  IANA Considerations

   Value            Description                          Reference
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   TBD_0            NSH Service Option                  [This draft]
   TBD_1            IOAM Service Option                 [This draft]
   TBD_2            PBT Service Option                  [This draft]
   TBD_3            IFA Service Option                  [This draft]
   TBD_4            SFC Service Metadata Type           [This draft]
   TBD_5            IOAM Service Metadata Type          [This draft]
   TBD_6            IFA Service Metadata Type           [This draft]

6.  Security Considerations

   TBD.

7.  References

7.1.  Normative References







Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


   [I-D.guichard-spring-nsh-sr]
              Guichard, J., Song, H., Tantsura, J., Halpern, J.,
              Henderickx, W., Boucadair, M., and S. Hassan, "NSH and
              Segment Routing Integration for Service Function Chaining
              (SFC)", draft-guichard-spring-nsh-sr-01 (work in
              progress), March 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-6man-segment-routing-header]
              Filsfils, C., Dukes, D., Previdi, S., Leddy, J.,
              Matsushima, S., and d. daniel.voyer@bell.ca, "IPv6 Segment
              Routing Header (SRH)", draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-
              header-22 (work in progress), August 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-ippm-ioam-data]
              Brockners, F., Bhandari, S., Pignataro, C., Gredler, H.,
              Leddy, J., Youell, S., Mizrahi, T., Mozes, D., Lapukhov,
              P., Chang, R., daniel.bernier@bell.ca, d., and J. Lemon,
              "Data Fields for In-situ OAM", draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-
              data-06 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.ietf-spring-srv6-network-programming]
              Filsfils, C., Camarillo, P., Leddy, J.,
              daniel.voyer@bell.ca, d., Matsushima, S., and Z. Li, "SRv6
              Network Programming", draft-ietf-spring-srv6-network-
              programming-01 (work in progress), July 2019.

   [I-D.kumar-ippm-ifa]
              Kumar, J., Anubolu, S., Lemon, J., Manur, R., Holbrook,
              H., Ghanwani, A., Cai, D., Ou, H., and L. Yizhou, "Inband
              Flow Analyzer", draft-kumar-ippm-ifa-01 (work in
              progress), February 2019.

   [I-D.song-ippm-postcard-based-telemetry]
              Song, H., Zhou, T., Li, Z., Shin, J., and K. Lee,
              "Postcard-based On-Path Flow Data Telemetry", draft-song-
              ippm-postcard-based-telemetry-04 (work in progress), June
              2019.

   [I-D.song-opsawg-ifit-framework]
              Song, H., Li, Z., Zhou, T., Qin, F., Shin, J., and J. Jin,
              "In-situ Flow Information Telemetry Framework", draft-
              song-opsawg-ifit-framework-04 (work in progress),
              September 2019.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.



Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

   [RFC8200]  Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6
              (IPv6) Specification", STD 86, RFC 8200,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8200, July 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8200>.

   [RFC8300]  Quinn, P., Ed., Elzur, U., Ed., and C. Pignataro, Ed.,
              "Network Service Header (NSH)", RFC 8300,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8300, January 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8300>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

Authors' Addresses

   Zhenbin Li
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: lizhenbin@huawei.com


   Shuping Peng
   Huawei Technologies
   Huawei Bld., No.156 Beiqing Rd.
   Beijing  100095
   China

   Email: pengshuping@huawei.com











Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        IPv6 Encaps for SFC and IFIT        September 2019


   Kihoon LEE
   LG U+
   71, Magokjungang 8-ro, Gangseo-gu
   Seoul
   Republic of Korea

   Email: soho8416@lguplus.co.kr












































Li, et al.               Expires March 13, 2020                [Page 12]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/